I'm still waiting for a Netlfix/Hulu/AmazonPrime-like version of an app for sports. I would never buy satellite or cable again if I could get ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS Sports, etc. all on one app on my TV/Computer/Phone.

I think people confusing Sling TV with Slingbox is a real concern.

oooooohhhhhhhh

yeah .

that would be me

No idea http://www.wsj.com/articles/sling-tv-a-giant-step-from-ca...

Since I live in the country I will never see a cable but I have been trying for years to see my CBS and ESPN and such. Have talked to terrestrial guys to get an antennae high enough to pull Dayton, Ft Wayne or Indy for my locals and still get the rest via Internet.

This would be the deal if it pans out.... Thanks for the info.

some day I might like to know what my satellite cost would be withOUT espn. probably cut in half without those extorting mother******* involved.

ESPN itself is $5-6 nowadays.

I'm guessing the answer would be that your bill would be MORE expensive if the majority of those channels are sports channels. Just guessing.

I think there actually was legislation proposed at one time to force companies to offer stations individually, but most "experts" suggested this would just cause the overall cost to inflate and you'd end up paying more anyway.

The WSJ ran an article last summer showing that ESPN amounts to over $6 per month on the average bill -- which will climb to $8 in a couple years. They also gave figures for some of the more popular channels: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-p.../

One reason there are so many programmers out there is because they charge so little, and for some of the shopping channels they actually pay a portion of each sale to the cable/satellite provider. Their effect on bills is negligible.

I think a la carte service may be the wave of the future for cable & satellite if they hope to compete with the Internet. I think subscribers at least want the perception that they're not paying for something they don't want. And it won't cost more, despite what the cable companies say. They'll find a way to price it reasonably to compete with Internet services.

I think an a la carte system would be a bad thing for sports. A large enough chunk of subscribers declare sports "must-see" that ESPN & others are able to get a pretty hefty rate from the cable providers, for every single subscriber. But if given a chance to pass on those sports in an a la carte system, I would be willing to bet about 75% would do so. That means they'd have to charge 4 times are much just to keep revenue flat.

And putting a rate 4 times higher (e.g. $30+ per month for ESPN) in the laps of consumers would result in a lot of rejection. The only beneficiary I can see is sports bars. I think the more things get boiled down to a specific cut and dry "do I really need this?" question, you're more likely to get a No from the end user.

From there, we could talk as well about how channel flipping and exploring can capture new fans, and sports only reaching homes of people who are explicitly willing to pay a pretty penny to view it...could have a very bad long-term effect.

The one thing sports does forever have on it's side - Sports are seen as "must-see-live" programming in a world where seemingly every other entertainment option is on-demand. This makes your advertising spots significantly more valuable.

Well, Comcast didn't sit around. They bought NBC and have their own streaming service, though I don't know of anyone who uses it.

Andrew does make a good point... but the sports bubble is going to pop at some point. It's just a question of what the needle is.